The Controversy and Chaos of Batman's origins!

[THE BAT-MAN]

Many people have accused Tim Burton for not being true to the origin story of how batman came to be by having Joker be the murderer of Bruce's parents.  This has led to much controversy and somewhat chaos amongst batman fans.  I think that it is time to address this issue.  First off, I want to make it clear that this is only my opinion if you agree great.  If not, share with me your disagreements.  I only desire to resolve the situation and bring unity amongst all batman fans. 

"Well, let's start!"- Penguin

In november of 1939, Detective Comics issue#33, Bob Kane had an unknown mugger be the murderer of Thomas and Martha Wayne.  This mugger would eventually be known as Joe Chill.  According to sources it has been cited that Bob Kane approved Tim's take of Joker being the killer  and in Michael Uslan's introduction to batman in the fifities he states that Bob kane said, "If the Joker had been created originally in 1939, that's who would have murdererd the Waynes in the comicbook!".  If this statement is true then this sheds new light on the film.  In my opinion,  I would like to point out that unless written by the original creator comicbooks are not the bible or law per say, but are merely interpretations of the characters that inhabit them very much so like a film.  I mean just take a look at how the comicbook world evolves, one minute Batman's a serious vigilante and dark avenger, the next he's a law abiding citizen in pursuit of justice, then he's campy and then back to serious its like, how can anyone say that comicbooks are the truth of how one should look at a character?  The way I see it, is it depends upon the interpretation of the story.  If the film has a better interpretation then I would go with the film and if the comicbook has a better interpretation then I would go with the comicbook.  So lets take a look at Tim's interpretation of Batman's origins.

When young Jack Napier murdered the Waynes, many have believed that his accomplice was a young version of Bob the goon.  I believe this not to be true.   In my opinion,  I believe that his accomplice could have possibly been the unknown mugger referred in Detective Comics #33 november 1939  who murdered the Waynes and later was given the name Joe Chill.

According to the end credits he is referred to as the other mugger.  I believe that Tim Burton's interpretation of the origin story is the best origin to date.  This should have been the original origin story of 1939.  It establishes Joker as Batman's arch nemesis it became more gratifying." I made you, you made me first."  It deals with the unknown mugger of 1939 we don't know his name, he gets away and supposedly never gets apprehended.  Joker may have killed Batman's parents but he did have an accomplice therefore giving Batman a reason to keep warring on criminals.  Its just perfect,  the cool thing is that you can even go deeper with the psychology of the characters.

One of the things I wish DC would have done is create a spin off comic series based on Tim Burton's origins for Batman.  Where we see a young Jack Napier working his a way up as a notorious gangster.  The mob families try to bribe Thomas Wayne into helping them build an empire of what they consider  to be a better Gotham.  He refuses of course, and  because of this Jack has a talk with the heads of the mob families and offers to kill Thomas.  They suggest to make it look like a mugging,  and offer that Joe Chill accompanies him.  Later, Chill debriefs Jack that they are only going to kill Thomas and that his wife may be important later.  The hit goes wrong Chill particpates in the mugging but Jack is filled with blood lust and decides to kill both Thomas and Martha.  Chill stunned at what just happened is holding whats left of the pearls in his hand.  Jack aims the gun slowly at Bruce and say's,  "Tell me kid have you ever danced with the devil by the pale moonlight?"  Shocked and horrified Joe Chill begins to flee and say's "Man let's go,  let's go Jack!"  To me this would show Jack has early signs of being pychologically and emotionally unstable.   Anyway this is a what if story.   Thanks for allowing me to share my feelings about Tim Burton's origins of Batman.

[DarkVengeance]

I completly understand all of your comments and can agree with you to a point. The origin Burton gave for 89 fits perfectly well to give Batman/Bruce Wayne the pure vengeance to Jack Napier/The Joker and made the  chemistry between them work very very well, and the story tie together perfectly.

[Kamdan]

I like to think that Bruce made himself think that the killer of his parents was him, because frankly, that guy who played the young Naiper looked NOTHING like Nicholson. Even The Joker's is kind of confused by the statement. "What are you talking about?" "How childish can you get?"

[Batmoney]

The origin in Batman 89 is just fine, and anyone who complains extensively about it is way to anal. They stuck to the same theme and ideals for the event, and simply switched the perpetrator. It was still a random street mugging essentially, and it gave so much more emotional value to both characters.

I love Batman Begins also, but it's like if people complain about the Joker being the killer of Batman's parents', then why wouldn't they complain about the idea in Begins where it is apparently the work of the League of Shadows?

[thecolorsblend]

The origin in Batman 89 is just fine, and anyone who complains extensively about it is way to anal. They stuck to the same theme and ideals for the event, and simply switched the perpetrator. It was still a random street mugging essentially, and it gave so much more emotional value to both characters.

I love Batman Begins also, but it's like if people complain about the Joker being the killer of Batman's parents', then why wouldn't they complain about the idea in Begins where it is apparently the work of the League of Shadows?

I'll go one better on that.  The accepted origin is that the Waynes were shot after watching the Mark of Zorro.  Nolan intentionally ignored that.  It isn't that he had no awareness of it, he makes no bones about knowing that the Zorro thing goes back a long way in the comics, he simply chose to go another way with it.  If Burton is going to get crucified for changing Batman's origin on so significant a point, why does Nolan get a free pass for doing the same thing?

But your LOS thing, excellent point.

[DarkVengeance]

Nolan using the play only inflicted Bruce's fear of bats even worse, continuing that one day he would use his fear to do good in the world, it wasnt ignored just decided to leave it out, which was a very good thing.

[batass4880]

The origin in Batman 89 is just fine, and anyone who complains extensively about it is way to anal.

I've noticed too there are alot of fanboys who whine about Napier killing the Waynes but they never complain about the Joker's gangster backstory and that was never in the comic book. They just like to nit-pick and it's kind of hypocritical.

I was actually quite surprised to learn that the gangster profile was never done in the comics especially considering that Bill Finger's stories were influenced by gangster movies and pulp comic books. Plus, the Joker dresses like an eccentric gangster anyway with the suit & vest and the hat & overcoat.

[Jack Napier]

Gee, think of it this way. A RANDOM thug shot Batman's parents, and a RANDOM thug fell into the acid. So, the same RANDOM thug also happened to be the same RANDOM thug to fall into the acid and become the Joker, so what? Its not like the same guy who killed Bruce's parents can't be the Joker.

[thecolorsblend]

Nolan using the play only inflicted Bruce's fear of bats even worse, continuing that one day he would use his fear to do good in the world, it wasnt ignored just decided to leave it out, which was a very good thing.

I didn't mention that to be critical, only to be balanced.  If Burton is iconoclastic for using the Joker as the Waynes killer, Nolan is all the moreso for sending the Waynes to a play rather than a movie.  The canon holds that the Waynes were shot coming home from a movie.  Miller (for sure, but this may pre-date even him) simply got more specific that it was the Mark of Zorro.  Either way, it'd been firmly established before Nolan was even born that the Waynes went to a movie.  In my reading, this was the last positive memory Bruce has of his parents.  Taking that away from him by sending him to a creepy play changes things somewhat.  It was a sucky night for him all around.  Is that a huge change?  I wouldn't say so... but the people who whine and moan the loudest about the Joker killing the Waynes in B89 seem remarkably silent on this particular choice of Nolan's.  It's just interesting, that's all I'm saying.

I was actually quite surprised to learn that the gangster profile was never done in the comics especially considering that Bill Finger's stories were influenced by gangster movies and pulp comic books. Plus, the Joker dresses like an eccentric gangster anyway with the suit & vest and the hat & overcoat.

I dunno about that.  He wasn't an out-and-out gangster in Batman #1 but he certainly competed against and killed gangsters.  The impression the reader is left with is that the Joker has a lot of history with those gangsters he went up against.  Still, you make a very good point.  A very good point.

Gee, think of it this way. A RANDOM thug shot Batman's parents, and a RANDOM thug fell into the acid. So, the same RANDOM thug also happened to be the same RANDOM thug to fall into the acid and become the Joker, so what? Its not like the same guy who killed Bruce's parents can't be the Joker.

Here's a guy who knows what he's talking about.  Listen to him.

[The Dark Knight]

Even though it adds to the character?s trauma of bats, I would have preferred Nolan just use the film that is The Mark of Zorro. But likewise, while Burton does not use Chill at all, it doesn?t really matter. It?s a different take; Batman?s world is a large canvas.